U.S. Patent Grants Fell 7% Last Year, but ‘Software-Related’ Grants Remained at 63%

“[In 2021], software deals accounted for almost half of all the technology sector’s deals by value, seeing an increase of 121% compared to 2020.”

software - https://depositphotos.com/38756235/stock-photo-software-concept.htmlAs an update to my posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, and August 2021, it has now been 93 months since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased over 73 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.).

Further, it has been 11 years since famed venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote the influential and often-quoted op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “Why Software Is Eating the World.” Today, the digital transformation where software is “eating the world” is undeniable. Let’s look at some facts and figures from the USA, Europe, and China.

In 2021, M&A values in the technology sector exceeded USD 1 trillion, the highest year on record, with a 64% increase versus 2020. And, software deals accounted for almost half of all the technology sector’s deals by value, seeing an increase of 121% compared to 2020 [Allen & Overy]. The United States is the largest technology market in the world, representing 33% of the total estimated IT spend for 2022, followed by Europe at 19% and China at 14% [CompTIA].

So, given the above, we sought to determine what percentage of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO)-, and Chinese Patent Office (CNIPA)-issued patents are “software-related”.

To define what patents are “software-related,” we utilized the same methodology employed by the United States Government Accountability Office in a 2013 report to Congress. That report relied on certain United States Patent Classification (USPC) classes and subclasses of applications most likely to include software-related claims as selected by expert advisors to the USPTO. Now, with the assistance of IP services firm Clairvolex (and after converting from the USPC system to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system), data was pulled from the PatSeer Global Patent Database. The results? Well, even in a post-COVID-19 world where USPTO patent grants were down 7%, we found that in 2021:

  • 63.1% of issued U.S. utility patents were “software-related” (relatively unchanged from the 63.2% in 2020)
  • 49.4% of granted EPO patents were “software-related” (exceeding the 48.9% in 2020)
  • 40.2% of granted Chinese patents were “software-related” (keeping pace with the 40.2% in 2020)

Digging deeper into these numbers, we found that the top 15 software-related U.S. granted utility patent assignees for 2021 were:

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: 72soul
Image ID: 38756235


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

5 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    March 23, 2022 09:41 am

    To echo Night Writer (and add my own angle), I would also dissect the data set to differentiate large corporations and international corporations.

    Those seeking to play the games of Efficient Infringer and Sport of Kings will overlap with such dissected data sets.

  • [Avatar for Eileen McDermott]
    Eileen McDermott
    March 22, 2022 09:34 pm

    Thanks Curious, all of the bulleted percentages were cut off somehow in posting; fixed now.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    March 22, 2022 05:31 pm

    Thanks this is interesting. I think you need to start to split out US patents, though, in accordance with where the invention was made.

  • [Avatar for concerned]
    March 22, 2022 09:13 am

    My CAFC oral arguments on a patent application using software are coming up in May 2022.

    I would settle for a straight answer on my application. If the law is so “supposedly” on the USPTO side to reject, why will the USPTO et.al. not define words added to the law and/or recognize evidence that directly refutes what they write?

    The USPTO and their agents readily admit I meet the everyday language of the law and that I solved a long standing problem, but somehow I do not meet “their” version of the law. Please USPTO give me your version of the law by defining the words added to s101 during said upcoming oral arguments, we begged for the same in our brief.

    Simply stating in a vague way that my application is rejected because of an “unnamed” body of law is hardly inspiring. In fact, my application meets what SCOTUS wrote in Alice even if it is deemed abstract (which we do not concede.) SCOTUS wrote that abstract ideas are still patentable if the process renders a new and useful process (solved a problem existing since 1956-not in dispute from either side.)

    I reject the USPTO’s position under s112 for vagueness.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    March 21, 2022 05:31 pm

    There appears to be a formatting error. It reads “1% of issued U.S. utility patents were “software-related” (relatively unchanged from the 63.2% in 2020).”

    Regardless — good work, as always.

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT

Industry Events

Bayh-Dole Act March In Webinar
May 31 @ 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog